T 171 
.S84 
1910 
Copy 1 



[ OF STEVENS INSTITUTE 
OF TECHNOLOGY 



EVIDENCE 



BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON CLAIMS OF 
THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 



ON 



H. R. 20338 



FOR THE RELIEF OF STEVENS INSTITUTE OF 
TECHNOLOGY OF HOBOKEN, N. J. 



STATEMENT OF 

ALEXANDER C. HUMPHREYS 
President of the Stevens Institute of Technology 

APRIL 6, 1910 



COMMITTEE ON CLAIMS, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, UNITED STATES 
Sixty-First Congress, Second Session 



GEORGE W. 
CHARLES Q. TIRRELL 
WILLIAM H. GRAHAM 
CHARLES A. LINDBERGH 
WILLIS C. HAWLEY 
JOHN Q. TILSON 
CHARLES S. MILLINGTON 
DICK T.MORGAN 
CHARLES H. CO WLES 



PRINCE, Chairman. 

HENRY M. GOLDFOGLE 
CLAUDE KITCHIN 
EZEKIEL S. CANDLER, Jr 
DORSEY W. SHACKLEFORD 
JAMES O. PATTERSON 
JOHN A. M. ADAIR 
PATRICK F. GILL 
^M. BERT WOOLSEY, Clerk 



WASHINGTON 
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

1910 



CLAIM OF STEVENS INSTITUTE 
OF TECHNOLOGY 



EVIDENCE 



BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON CLAIMS OF 
THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 



ON 



H. R. 20338 



FOR THE RELIEF OF STEVENS INSTITUTE OF 
TECHNOLOGY OF HOBOKEN, N. J. 



STATEMENT OF 

ALEXANDER C. HUMPHREYS 

President of the Stevens Institute of Technology 

APRIL 6, 1910 



COMMITTEE ON CLAIMS, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, UNITED STATES 
Sixty-Fikst Congress, Second Session 

GEORGE W. PRINCE, Chairman. 

CHARLES Q. TIRRELL HENRY M. GOLDFOGLE 

WILLIAM H. GRAHAM CLAUDE KITCHIN 

CHARLES A. LINDBERGH EZEKIEL S. CANDLER, JR 

WILLIS C. HAWLEY DORSEY W. SHACKLEFORD 

JOHN Q. TILSON JAMES 0. PATTERSON 

CHARLES S. MILLINGTON JOHN A. M. ADAIR 

DICK T. MORGAN PATRICK F. GILL 
CHARLES H. COWLES M. BERT WOOLSEY, Clerk 



WASHINGTON 
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

1910 



\" 






[H. R. 20338. Sixty-first Congress, second session.] 

A BILL For the relief of the Stevens Institute of Technology, of Hoboken, New Jersey. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury is hereby authorized and 
directed to pay to the trustees of the Stevens Institute of Technology, of Hoboken, 
New Jersey, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, the sura 
of forty-five thousand seven hundred and fifty dollars, with interest accruing thereon 
since January twenty-eighth, eighteen hundred and seventy, being the amount of 
collateral inheritance tax collected from the endowment fund left by the will of the 
founder of the said institution, Edwin A. Stevens, of Hoboken, New Jersey. 

2 






go 

Z) 



STEVENS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, HOBOKEN, N. J. 



Committee on Claims, 
House of Representatives, 

Wednesday, April 6, 1910. 

Hon. George W. Prince (chairman) presiding. 

The Chairman. Now, Mr. Tilson, you have here some cases that 
are before your subcommittee; } r ou are chairman of it, and I wish 
you would take charge of the hearing. 

Mr. Tilson. The first is the case of the Stevens Institute of Tech- 
nology, H. R. 20338. The bill is introduced by Mr. Wiley, of New 
Jersey, and is for the repayment of $45,750, with interest, to the 
Stevens Institute of Technology. It appears from this bill that this 
claim is for a tax collected by the United States from an endowment 
fund left by the will of Edwin A. Stevens to the Stevens Institute of 
Technology. 

STATEMENT OF MR. ALEXANDER C. HUMPHREYS, PRESIDENT 
OF THE STEVENS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY AND ALSO 
PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE SAID IN- 
STITUTE. 

Mr. Humphreys. How do you wish me to proceed? Do you 
desire that I should make a statement of the facts as I see them ? 

Mr. Tilson. Just make your statement on the basis of which you 
think the United States should refund this money. 

Mr. Humphreys. A statement at length is already on file with 
your committee, the printed statement of 1905 and the printed state- 
ment of March 16, 1910, both of which were prepared by me per- 
sonally after an exhaustive examination of all papers available. 

The amount of $45,750 was assessed against the Stevens Institute 
of Technology at the time the money came to the institute through 
the will of E. A. Stevens, the founder. At that time the war-tax 
law had not been repealed, though the repeal of the law, as far as it 
effected educational and charitable institutions, was under consider- 
ation. 

Mr. Tilson. This war tax was passed as far back as what date ? 

Mr. Humphreys. 1862, sir. 

Mr. Tilson. And it had been in operation? 

Mr. Humphreys. It had been in operation. 

Mr. Tilson. Since 1862? 

Mr. Humphreys. July 1, 1862, amended June 30, 1864, and again 
amended July 13, 1866. 

Mr. Tilson. And was repealed ? 



4 STEVK.VS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, HOBOKEN, N. J. 

Mr. Bumfhbeys. It w&8 repealed July. 1870, as to the class of 
institutions named, about six months after the payment of our tax. 

Mr. Tii.son. Was i here anything said in the repeal in regard to the 
repayment of any taxes which had been collected under it or the 
release <>{' any taxes that had been laid but not collectedl 

Mr. Humphreys. The relief of those institutions which had been 
assessed but had not paid was specifically provided for in the repeal; 
and not only that, but special acts were passed almost exactly at the 
same time relieving the Vassar College bequests, and a number of 
bequests in the hands of Mr. Edge, of Massachusetts. The Vassar 
College bequest dated back almost exactly two years. 

Mr. Tilson. Get back for a moment to just what the repeal says 
in regard to repayment; let us get the law first and then we will have 
the precedents. 

Mr. Humphreys. The Forty-first Congress passed an act of general 
application repealing — 

All provisions of existing laws whereby any tax or duty is laid upon bequests or 
devises, or transfers by deed, grant, or gift, made, or intended to take effect after trie 
death of the grantor, of any real or personal property, in trust or otherwise, for public 
uses of a literary, educational, or charitable character, or upon any real or personal 
estate, which may become subject to any trust as aforesaid, under any past or future 
disposition, which, if made in favor of an individual would confer on him a succession, 
* * * and no taxes heretofore levied thereunder, but not paid, shall be collected. 

I emphasize the point that the taxes assessed, but not paid, were 
not to be collected. 

Mr. Tilsox. That was the repeal of this very act under which this 
tax was paid? 

Mr. Humphreys. Yes, sir. We have endeavored from the first to 
learn if any taxes had been paid under that law by educational insti- 
tutions. Although the investigation was taken up away back in the 
seventies by my predecessors — I did not graduate from the institution 
until 1881 and did not return to the institute as president until 1902 — 
there has never been a case cited, although the letters and reports 
from the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, especially the one which 
you have on file dated 1908, intimate that there are such payments 
and that receipts for such payments could be found. They say, how- 
ever, that it would be impossible at this late date to find them. They 
also state in this letter that no claim was ever filed in this department 
for the refunding of this tax. I will now quote from the letter of Feb- 
ruary 5, 1906, from J. TV. Yerkes, commissioner, the letter you have 
on file: 

No claim has ever been filed in this department for the refunding of this tax, and 
none could have been, for after careful search I am unable to find that any act was 
ever passed by Congress authorizing the refund of this class of taxes collected under 
the act of July 1, 1862, and its amendments. 

It is true, perhaps, in a technical sense, that there was no claim filed, 
because of the reasons stated here. But the claim was made on the 
Treasury Department almost immediately after the passage of the 
law of repeal, and the contest was kept up for many, many years, 
the claim first being prosecuted with the Treasury Department. 
And the Treasury Department having stated that they could do 
nothing because the act of repeal failed to cover refunds as well as 
remissions it was taken up with Congress, and in 1875 a petition was 
filed by the trustees of the institute, who, at that time were still the 
original trustees of the institute, and also the trustees of the will of 



STEVENS INSTITUTE OF IBC 1 1 NOI JDQ V , 1 1 OIJO 8 I'.X, N. J. 5 

B, A. Stevens, namely, the widow of Mr. Stevens, her brother, a 
minister of the gospel, and a sea captain. Naturally this board did 
not anticipate that it would be necessary to prosecute a claim which, 
on its face, was so eminently fair and just. The trustees also made 
a petition to Congress December 26, 1877; and in both of these peti- 
tions it is distinctly stated — it is very briefly stated in this last 
petition: "The case is the only case of the kind and the amount is 
not great." So while we can not positively sa} r that there is no 
case similar to ours, the department, although repeatedly applied 
to, has never been able to cite such a case. 

Now, our position is this: That certain assessments made prior to 
ours were not paid; those who had failed to pay their assessments 
Were relieved by this repeal, while we who paid within twenty-eight 
days of the bill being filed with us have not gotten relief, and I claim 
that those who were so relieved, Vassar College and others, have had 
the advantage all these years of the principal plus the interest, and 
that no matter whether payment had been made by other institu- 
tions prior to the date of the Vassar bequest or not, that as long as 
the repeal relieved those who had not paid and who had been assessed 
prior to our assessment we should be put on a par with them; in all 
equity we should have the relief sought. Otherwise we are penalized 
for paying the amount demanded by the Government while others 
were relieved because they did not meet the Government's demands. 

The position of the Treasury Department is brought a little more 
up-to-date by the letter of April 4, 1910, from CD. Hilles, Acting 
Secretary of the Treasury, to Hon. W. H. Wiley, which letter says: 

Treasury Department, 

Washington, April 4, 1910. 
Hon. W. H. Wiley, 

House of Representatives, Washington, D . C. 
Sir: Referring to your letter of April 4, requesting to be advised what institutions, 
outside of the Stevens Institute of Technology, of Hoboken, N. J., paid the legacy 
taxes under the law of 1862 and its amendments, especially the act of June 3, 1864, 
and what, if any, claims have been made by such institutions for its refundment, and 
asking, further, that this information be furnished you some time to-morrow, I beg to 
advise that the data requested is in the files of the Bureau of Internal Revenue, but 
inasmuch as there were a great number of institutions similar to the Stevens Institute 
of Technology which paid this tax from 1862 to 1870, and these institutions were 
scattered through more than 300 collection districts then in existence in the United 
States, and the fact that the assessment lists for all of these districts would have to be 
examined through the period of eight years referred to, it would take a considerable 
force of clerks for a considerable period of time to gather the data desired. It would 
be entirely impossible to have the data at the time requested. 

So far as the records of the Bureau of Internal Revenue show, no claim for refund of 
the tax on an institution of this character has ever been allowed. As to whether or 
not any bills have been passed granting relief in such cases I am unable to state. 
Very respectfully, 

C. D. Hilles, Acting Secretary. 

I do not want to differ too strongly with the gentleman who wrote 
this letter, but as this effort has been made for many years to get this 
information, and as they have never been able to bring up a single 
case, it seems rather extraordinary to intimate that there are some 
three or four hundred collection districts that have to be looked 
through or examined. 

Mr. Tilson. There must have been bequests during that period ? 

Mr. Humphreys. I should think so, though, of course, at that time 
if you recollect — but probably your memory does not go that far 



6 STEVENS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, HOBOKEN, N. J. 

back take, for instance, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. 
It was really founded by Rogers in L858 or 1859, but the war came 
along and practically halted them, so the work was not pushed until 
after the war. Matters were pretty dull in the educational line dur- 
ing the civil-war period. I will not lay great stress on this point, 
except to say i li.it we made every effort to find out the facts. When 
I took charge of the institute as president in 1902, it t ok me a year 
or two to get the facts. Since then additional facts have come to me 
from the papers found by the executors of my predecessors, Doctor 
Morton, president of the* institute, and the Rev. Mr. Dod, president 
of the hoard of trustees. So I have received some papers which they 
themselves had forgotten were in existence. 

Now, when I took hold of this matter actively, about 1903, 1 went 
so far as to say, in answer to a possible criticism that had been sug- 
gested, that if this money was paid it would be used entirely for the 
benfit of the institute; that no commissions or expenses would be 
paid out of it; that not one dollar would be diverted from the amount 
received. I want to state now that this money, if recovered, will 
go to buy the land absolutely necessary for our institution, the 
historic Castle Point, including the so-called Stevens Castle. I 
also offered at that time, if the Commissioner of Internal Revenue 
could not find the necessary force for the work^and although I pre- 
sumed it would be out of order — if he could find a way of authorizing 
it I would personally pay the expenses of the auditors to go through 
those books; that I wanted to find the actual facts as much as he did. 
The reply was made that outsiders could not be allowed access to 
the papers for such a purpose. The chairman of this Claims Com- 
mittee in the last Congress, Mr. Miller, when I made the statement 
to him that I could not get this information, guaranteed that he 
would get it, but after trying two or three weeks he had to give it up. 

But my point is apart from that, and I want to lay some stress on 
it, that our case is the same as the case of those who had been assessed 
before us and had not paid; and no matter whether others had paid 
in the past or not, that is, before the Vassar bequest, which was 
relieved, we did pay our claim; paid it within twenty-eight days of the 
receipt of the demand; those who had been assessed but had refused 
to make payment had bills introduced in the House for relief and 
Vassar did get, six months after we paid, special legislation, which 
canceled its obligation; they got relieved and we did not. The Edge 
legacies were also relieved, practically at the same time. Also, within 
six months of the time Stevens Institute made payment, the general 
act of repeal was enacted, which gave relief to any and all institutions 
which might be involved except the one institution which had paid 
the Government's claim so promptly. 

Mr. Goldfogle. How much did you pay ? 

Mr. Humphreys. $45,750. I do~ not know whether you care to 
have these as an exhibit, but here are the photographs of the original 
receipts from the collector of the district. There was some intima- 
tion that the claim had not been substantiated. I therefore present 
these to cover that item of proof. 

Mr. Goldfogle. What do you mean by the original photographs ? 

Mr. Humphreys. The photographs of the original receipts from 
Jacob Weart, collector. 



STEVENS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, HOBOKEN, N. J. 7 

Mr. Gill. Are they marked as being paid under protest — that is, 
are the receipts so marked \ 

Mr. Humphreys. No; and from my information they would not 
have been so marked. 

Mr. 'I'll. son. Is there any claim that it was illegal at all ? 

Mr. Humphreys. No. I do not claim that it was technically 
illegal, but I do claim that as long as those who were assessed prior 
to our assessment and later got relief from Congress by special and 
general legislation, in all equity we should be included with them; 
we should not be penalized because we did pay and they did not. 

Mr. Goldfogle. You mean that at the time you paid the money 
the assessment or tax was lawful? 

Mr. Humphreys. Yes, sir; technically lawful, because the law had 
not been repealed. 

Mr. Goldfogle. So that you were required to pay the money at 
the time and you did pay it? 

Mr. Humphreys. Yes, sir; we did pay and others who were 
assessed before us did not pay. In that connection let me say that 
probably why there was no protest filed was this: You see all of 
these originai trustees have died since, although they were all living 
for some years after I graduated from the institute; and they have 
stated they did not know at the time they made payment anything 
about any- movement for repeal, or that the matter was being con- 
sidered by Congress. 

The Chairman. Your claim is this: That on January 28, 1870, 
the Stevens Institute, through its trustees, paid to the collector for 
the fifth district of New Jersey $45,750 under the legacy law then in 
existence ? 

Mr. Humphreys. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. You do not question the lawfulness of the amount 
paid? 

Mr. Humphreys. No, sir; I wish I could. 

The Chairman. Now, then, on the 14th 

Mr. Humphreys. Let me correct you in a little detail. 

Mr. Goldfogle. Are we to understand that those who were relieved 
by special legislation were given a premium by the Government 
because they were not good enough citizens to pay the tax ? 

Mr. Humphreys. That is it exactly. In order that there may be 
no misunderstanding about details I want to say that the tax was 
not paid January 28; that is, all of it; it was paid in two amounts 
two days apart, for some reason. 

The Chairman. Well, I am reading from your statement. 

Mr. Humphreys. On January 26, $18,750 was paid and two days 
later $27,000 was paid, making a total of $45,750. 

The Chairman. Now, your further claim is that this act, under 
which you lawfully paid this money, was repealed July ,14, 1870. 

Mr. Humphreys. That is right, sir. 

The Chairman. You also claim that on July 15, 1870, there was 
approved a special act of the Forty-first Congress releasing from 
succession tax devises and bequests made to Vassar College by the 
last will and testament of Mathew Vassar, bearing date the 3d day of 
February, 1868? 

Mr. Humphreys. That is right, sir. 



8 STEVENS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, HOBOKEN, N. J. 

The Chairman. Now, thai is your claim. Here is the claim of the 
Treasury Department. But before going into that let me ask you: 
Did you ever make any claim on the Treasury Department, or any 
of its officials, lor the refunding of this tax 1 

Mr. Humphreys. Certainly, we did. 

The Chairman. When did you firsl make it 1 

Mr. HUMPHREYS. I will be able to furnish you with the exact dates. 

The Chairman. That you can put in your record when you revise it. 

Mi\ GOLDFOGLE. Are you able to state how many other institutions 
are situated as you are and paid the taxes under the law as you did? 

Mr. Humphreys. No, sir; I am unable to state, although, as I 
explained to the gentlemen before you came in, we have tried to get 
that information. I am taking the position that there are none like 
ours, which paid after those who were assessed and relieved from 
payment by the acts referred to. 

Mr. Goldfogle. The principle would be the same with regard to 
the other institutions that paid before ? 

Mr. Humphreys. No, sir; I think not. 

Mr. Goldfogle. Why not ? 

Mr. Humphreys. I will try to explain. I think there is a distinct 
dividing line. If certain institutions paid when there was no question 
of repeal, and certain other institutions later on were assessed but 
did not pay and successfully withstood the pressure of the Government 
and their position was finally confirmed by Congress repealing the law, 
I claim the date established by the earliest of these assessments that 
were not paid and later remitted by act of Congress creates a distinct 
dividing line, that any assessments paid from then on, if there were 
any besides ours, -should, in equity, get the same relief we ask for; 
but I am positive there were no others after that time, because an 
exhaustive examination was made in the early seventies and no other 
case was found. It is very well known in educational circles through- 
out the United States that this claim has been before Congress for 
years and yet no other like claim has been heard from. Probably I 
have a better chance to know because I am a member of the board of 
trustees of the Carnegie Foundation; Henry S. Pritchett, formerly 
president of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, is the chair- 
man of the Foundation, and he is one of our trustees and he has tried to 
find out; he is in touch with all the institutions of higher learning in 
the United States. But, of course, that is only negative evidence. 

The Chairman. You must bear this in mind — as one of the coordi- 
nate branches of the Government we have asked the executive 
branch for a report upon your bill. 

Mr. Humphreys. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. In that report they say as follows: 

No claim has ever been filed in this department for the refunding of this tax, and 
none could have been, for after careful search I am unable to find that any act was ever 
passed by Congress authorizing the refund of this class of taxes collected under the act 
of July 1, 1862, and its amendments. 

Under the act of June 13, 1898, commonly called the Spanish war tax act, taxes 
upon the passing of estates were levied similar in many respects to the law of 1862. 

On June 27, 1902, the Congress by an enactment authorized the Secretary of the 
Treasury to pay back to institutions similar to that of the Stevens Institute such sums 
of money as had been paid by them as taxes upon legacies received. This law covered 
the taxes paid since 1898 on funds received by religious, charitable, and educational 
institutions. 

The civil war legacy tax act was repealed by the act of July 14, 1870, to take effect 
October 1 of that year, but the repealing act contained no provisions for the repayment 



STEVENS INSTITUTE OF TKC I ! NOLOGY, HOBOKEN, X. J. 9 

of the tax collected on bequests passing to religious, literary, or educational insti- 
tutions. 

'Plus pending bill for the relief of the Stevens Institute asks for the rotund of $ 15,750 
with interest thereon since January 28, 1870. The interest, if calculated at (5 per cent, 
would now amount to $98,820, which, added to the principal, brings the total amount 
to be paid by the Government under the previsions of the bill to $144,570. 

This office knows of no reason why the Stevens Institute should be relieved under 
special legislation from the provisions of the act of 1862. 

Now, what is your answer to that? You must remember this, 
that you filed your bill, we called for a report, and that this is the 
evidence that is before us. Can you controvert it successfully? 

Mr. Humphreys. I can go a long way toward it. Technically, as 
I have said, a claim may not have been filed with the Treasury 
Department. A claim was made on the Treasury Department and 
was made by the firm of Alexander & Green, of New York, the 
Alexanders being in sympathetic relations with Mrs. E. A. Stevens. 

The Chairman. In any event, it was never allowed? 

Mr. Humphreys. That is quite true, sir. And the statement was 
made at that time, to the trustees, that action would have to be 
taken by Congress before the claim could be allowed. Bear in mind 
that I have now said that a claim was made through the Treasury 
Department; through failure to get it through the Treasury Depart- 
ment we went to Congress; we w r ent to Congress and filed a petition 
for the refunding of this money in 1875, and another in 1877; under 
those petitions the matter was prosecuted many years, and never 
once has the annual catalogue of the institute been printed without 
the statement appearing in it that the United States owed the in- 
stitute that much money and if we could get it we w r ould then only 
be put on a par with other institutions of like character under like 
conditions. So the thing has not been allowed to die; and when 
I took hold I wanted to know more about it and was made president. 
After an independent and full investigation, I commenced to prose- 
cute the claim with greater diligence. 

Mr. Goldfogle. This claim has never been favorably reported in 
the Senate or in the House ? 

Mr. Humphreys. I believe not. As I have said, the trustees were 
the widow, a minister of the gospel, and a sea captain, and they did 
not prosecute the claim with that energy and, perhaps, business 
acumen, that they might have. They trusted too implicitly to the 
good intentions of the Government. 

Mr. Goldfogle. Xow, assume, for the sake of the present argu- 
ment, that the claim has equity, though it is conceded that it has no 
legal foundation. Do you believe the Government should pay 
interest upon it ? I am asking you now as a citizen; I would like to 
get your views as a high-minded citizen. 

Mr. Humphreys. I will answer you as a citizen and also answer you 
as a trader. As a citizen I say if we have equity for the principal we 
have equity for the interest, for the reason that those who got relief had 
their assessments remitted and have had the advantage of principal 
and interest since that time. Now r , as to whether we would not be 
glad to get the principal alone is another question. We believe in 
equity we should get principal and interest for the reasons stated, but 
we might be glad to consider a compromise. 

Xow, I would like to specifically answer the statements of the 
Treasury Department 

The Chairman. That I would like to have you do. 



10 STEVENS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, HOBOKEN, N. J. 

Mr. Humphreys. Yes, sir; I want to run through the letter you 
have just read. I have already contradicted the statement that no 
claim was ever made on the department. There may never have 
been a technical filing of a claim, because, possibly, after the matter 
was thoroughly discussed with the Treasury Department and it was 
found that the claim would not be allowed, the technical step of filing 
a written claim may not have been taken; but the claim was taken 
before the Treasury Department, discussed with the officials at great 
length by Alexander & Green, and you know they have some stand- 
ing 

Mr. Goldfogle. Indeed they have; it is one of the best firms in my 
city. 

Mr. Humphreys. And then, and not until then, it was carried to 
Congress. Now, with regard to the Spanish war tax that is mentioned 
in the letter. There another precedent is established, because in that 
case not only did the United States remit assessments that had not 
been paid, but authorized the return of all sums of money that had 
been paid. 

It has been contended that if the Stevens Institute is entitled to 
relief, why not, then, all other institutions of similar character which 
paid the tax on similar legacies. I distinctly differ from the Treasury 
Department in that, even if such payments were made; and I am 
willing to state that there were no cases similar to the Stevens In- 
stitute — to state that there are no other cases; that is, of assessments 
made on or about the time of the Vassar assessment and paid as was 
the Stevens assessment. I think a thorough investigation — and I 
would personalty pay the expenses of that — would disclose the fact 
that there were no other such taxes paid after the laying of the 
assessments that were remitted; therefore I say there is no other 
case like it, and it would be a distinct answer to those who should 
come forward with claims dating back behind the date set by the 
remission of taxes, as already explained, by saying that Congress, 
through its act of July 14, 1870, established a precedent for repay- 
ment only as to such assessments as were laid on or about the time 
of the Yassar bequest. 

The Chairman. Don't you see that in your circular you are quoting 
precedents where we have refunded to different persons and manu- 
facturing companies ? 

Mr. Humphreys. I will tell you why I did that. 

The Chairman. And you have brought right up against us prece- 
dents that do not apply, in my judgment, to this case. You stand 
or fall, as I take it, in this way: You claim that you paid the assess- 
ment ; you claim that other institutions on all fours with your insti- 
tution and that had received bequests like yours did not pay the 
taxes, but deferred from time to time, and that they were relieved of 
the payment of their taxes by special acts of Congress ? 

Mr. Humphreys. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And you feel aggrieved in this because you did your 
patriotic duty in a time when the Government needed money and paid 
your assessment promptly, that others declined and refused to pay 
the assessment ; that they were relieved from its payment but that 
you were not relieved ? 

Mr. Humphreys. That is right, sir. 



STEVENS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, HOBOKEN, N. J. 11 

The CHAIRMAN. For that reason you claim that you have an equi- 
tahle right to be relieved? 

Mr. Humphreys. Yes, sir; and ours is the only case of that kind. 

The Chairman. Now, have you a case in existence that you can 
recall where money was actually paid in by an institution under a 
legacy ami where an act of Congress ordered the money to be repaid 
to that institution? 

Mr. Humphreys. Yes, sir; the very case cited in this letter. 

The Chairman. What one ? 

Mr. Humphreys. Under the Spanish war tax. 

The Chairman. That is another question. 

Mr. Tilson. That was required by law. 

The Chairman. That is another question, fort} T years after this 
particular matter in controversy. This matter has grown out of the 
law of 1862 and its amendments. We might hereafter pass a law 
establishing an inheritance tax and provide that certain institutions 
should not pay the tax, but you could not go back to the beginning of 
the Government and say this institution and that institution should 
be relieved because of the subsequent legislation. That is what you 
are seeking to do. You can not, in any sense, quote the Spanish war 
case as a precedent for your case. 

Mr. Humphreys. I was simply quoting that as 

The Chairman. So leave that out entirely. 

Mr. Humphreys. Will you let me refer to one thing which you 
stated about the manufacturers? 

The Chairman. Well, leave that out and get back to the point 
in issue. Have you any instance or any case growing out of the act 
of 1862, and its amendatory acts, where any institution has paid 
money into the Treasury and where Congress has ordered that money 
to be paid back to the institution ( 

Mr. Humphreys. I have not, sir. 

The Chairmax. Have you any instance, other than what you 
have stated as to the Vassar College and the Edge case, where 
institutions were assessed under that law, failed to pay the assessment, 
and were afterwards relieved from the assessment ? 

Mr. Humphreys. I have no information that I can definitely state. 
You will see at once how we managed to get hold of these two cases; 
there were special bills passed for their relief independent of the 
general act; that is how they came to our attention. It would be 
just as difficult to find the others, if there were any, as it was for the 
Treasury Department to find those that have been paid prior to this 
period under discussion. We would have to go through the Inter- 
nal Revenue Department's books to find out what assessments have 
been made and not paid; it wasn't within my power to get that in- 
formation. 

The Chairman. But these two cases we can know something 
about, because you refer to them ? 

Mr. Humphreys. Yes; you can learn about them definitely. 

The Chairman. Is there anything further ? 

Mr. Humphreys. I would like to say one word, sir. I am sorry 
to take so much time, but I am very much interested in this matter, 
especially as I am lying awake nights trying to find money to pay w 
the institute's expenses. 



12 STEVENS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, HOBOKEN, N. J. 

I would liko to have the committee's consideration of the facts 
stated, and I would like particularly to ask the members of the com- 
mittee to look over my statement of June 29, 1905, not necessarily 
burdening themselves with the first part of it, but to look at the 
latter part of it, headed " Inventions and work of Colonel John, 
Robert L., and Edwin A. Stevens, briefly stated." 

Mr. Goldfogle. Will you pardon an interruption at this point? 
I was not here when you commenced your statement, and I do not 
know whether you informed the committee whether your institute 
is one admitting pupils for pay only or whether it is one that takes 
in free pupils, and, if so, upon what terms ? Will you kindly inform 
me on that point. 

Mr. Humphreys. I have not covered that, but I shall be glad to 
do so. The institute charges a fee of $150 a year, which is very con- 
siderably less than any of the other engineering institutions of the 
Eastern States. For many years we have had in contemplation the 
raising of the fee; it has been within my power to do so, but I have 
resisted up to tins time; it costs us for each pupil about $300 a year. 
Thus we contribute from our endowment one-half the cost. 

Mr. Goldfogle. Are there any free scholarships ? 

Mr. Humphreys. We have some which I have established myself 
by endowment, and then we have some 16 that go to pupils graduated 
from high schools in Hoboken or Hudson County, X. J. I should 
wish we had very many more; I am endeavoring to get endowments 
for that very purpose, and especially I am endeavoring to induce the 
citizens of the several larger cities of Xew Jersey to establish such 
scholarships for the graduates of their high schools. 

Mr. Goldfogle. Otherwise there are no free scholarships ? 

Mr. Humphreys. There are no absolutely free scholarships except 
those mentioned, about 20 in all. We do sometimes ,pass through 
free or at reduced rates, sons of clergymen and educators. Of 
course, it is a mere question of size of endowment; unless I can 
get an endowment to support each scholarship — and it takes at 
least $5,000 — each scholarship would increase our deficit each year, 
and we are now running at a deficit of about $20,000 a year. 

Mr. Goldfogle. Don't you think that in an institute that asks a 
hundred and odd thousand dollars from the Government there ought 
to be enough philanthropy in those who take a great interest in the 
institute — and I happen to know they are quite wealthy — to provide 
free education for many who seek that kind of an education ? 

Mr. Humphreys. I say, sir, I am and have been for eight years 
trying very hard to get additions to our endowment, but while I am 
fairly efficient in some directions I fear I am inefficient as a beggar. 
I have secured additions to our endowment in eight years of about 
$375,000, and still we are running with a deficit. Engineering educa- 
tion is necessarily very expensive. 

I would like to refer, for a moment, to the work done by the Stevens 
family. It does not seem to be well known that this family, as a 
family of engineers, have been more prominent in the improvement 
of industrial applications than any other one family in the United 
States; and I will refer to a few of their inventions. For instance, 
John Stevens, the father of our founder, with his sons helping him, 
invented not only the screw propeller but the double screw propeller 
before Fulton's boat was on the water. Fulton's engine was built 



STEVENS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, HOBOKEN, N. J. 13 

in England, but the Stevens family built their own boat and their 
own engine in their own shops in Hoboken and put the boat on the 
water complete: it was the first steam-propelled boat to brave the 
perils o( the open sea; it encountered a severe storm, but it weathered 
it and made its way to Philadelphia, sailing from New York. Robert 
L. Stevens, the brother of our founder, was in charge. Robert L. 
Stevens was the inventor of the Trail on which all of our railroads 
are running; he was the inventor of the ''sleeper" construction for 
railroads, together with the spike, practically as now used; he was 
the inventor of many appliances in steam engines which are now 
used. They built the first steam ferryboat, and invented the spring 
pile slip construction to enable the boats to go in either end on, as now 
operated. Thev built the first ironclad war vessel, placed it at the 
disposal of the Government, and it could have been used at any time 
if the necessity had existed; it was used as an experimental station 
for the officers and engineers of the United States Xavy for many 
years for investigations, costing E. A. Stevens, our founder, over a 
million dollars. At the time of the war E. A. Stevens built, without 
cost to the Government, the celebrated gunboat called the Nauga- 
tuclc, which went down to Hampton Roads to meet the Merrimac. 

The Chairman. I will suggest that you obtain leave from the com- 
mittee to have that printed in the hearings. 

Mr. Humphreys. May I quote one sentence from this statement: 

Rear-Admiral George "W. Melville, U. S. Navy, stated, February 18, 1897: "John 
Stevens was one of those engineers whose labor has never received due official recog- 
nition. The navy owes much to the Stevens family, and as an officer of that service 
I am pleased to pay an honorable tribute to the importance of the work accomplished 
by its members. That a memorial should be erected to the work of John, Robert L., 
and Edwin A. Stevens is more than fitting. The day will yet come when the Congress 
of the United States will give some official recognition of the work rendered by these 
men." 

I respectfully call your particular attention to the petition of the 
trustees to Congress, dated December 26, 1877, and to the many 
petitions which have been filed with the committee in connection 
with the present bill for relief, coming from our alumni and others. 
I also refer you to the very general and intense interest taken in this 
question by our fifteen hundred alumni as evidenced by the hundreds 
of letters received by the members of this committee and other 
Members of Congress, 

I particularly bring to your attention correspondence between Mr. 
Andrew Carnegie and the honorable Speaker of the House. 

I also ask your careful consideration of two statements prepared by 
me, one dated June 29, 1905, and the other dated March 16, 1910. 

I respectfully suggest that Admiral Melville's suggestion may well 
be considered in connection with the institute's claim now under 
consideration. Let the great services rendered to the country and 
directly to the Government in times of need be considered at this 
time. Let it also be borne in mind that the Stevens endowment was 
applied in a pioneer effort, successful in an eminent degree, to estab- 
lish engineering education on lines so far untried. The institute 
was hampered from the first by being deprived by the Government 
of over 9 per cent of its productive endowment. I respectfully pray 
that this committee report favorably on II. R. 20338. 



14 STEVENS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, HOBOKEN, N. J. 

no. 14. united states internal revenue. 

Collector's Office, Fifth District of New Jersey, 



1870. 



Received of Martha B. Stevens, S. B. Dodd, and W. W. Shippen, executors estate 

of Edwin A. Stevens, deceased, dollars for excise tax on trustees of Stevens 

Institute, strangers legacy $450,000 (6), $27,000, being amount assessed on monthly 
list for December, 1869. 

Jacob We art, Collector. 



no. 14. united states internal revenue. 

Collector's Office, Fifth District of New Jersey, 

, 1870. 

Received by Samuel B. Dodd, trustee of Stevens Institute, dollars for 

excise tax on stranger-succession $312,500 (6 per cent), $18,750, being amount assessed 
on monthly list for December, 1869. 

Jacob Weart, Collector. 



Speaker's Room, House of Representatives, 

Washington, D. C, January 31, 1908. 
Dear Mr. Miller: Inclosed I hand you a letter from Andrew Carnegie relative to 
the bill pending in Congress for the relief of the Stevens Institute of Technology of 
Hoboken, N. J. A copy of my reply to Mr. Carnegie is also inclosed for your 
information. 

I am, with respect, etc., yours, truly, J. G. Cannon. 

Hon. James M. Miller, 

Chairman Committee on Claims, House of Representatives. 



Speaker's Room, House of Representatives, 

Washington, D. C, January 31, 1908. 
Dear Mr. Carnegie: I have your favor of the 29th instant and note what you say 
relative to the claim of the Stevens Institute of Technology of Hoboken. I have 
referred your letter to Hon. James M. Miller, chairman of the Committee on Claims, 
House of Representatives, and expressed the hope that he will give the bill to which 
you refer early attention. From the statement in your letter and the letter of President 
Humphreys it would appear that from every standpoint there is a righteous equity 
for the enactment of legislation for the relief of Stevens Institute . 

1 am, with respect, etc., yours, truly, 

J. G. Cannon. 
Hon. Andrew Carnegie, 

2 East Ninety-first street, New York City. 



New York, January 29, 1908. 

My Dear Mr. Speaker: I quite understand the difficulty there is in separating 
the old-time telegraphers from hosts of others, but here is a case which I really can not 
see any reason to deny. 

I have been a trustee of Stevens for years, and I do not know any institution which 
is doing better than it. I have contributed several hundred thousand dollars. Its 
needs were never more pressing than to-day, and I think it would be disgraceful that 
it should suffer for its virtue in paying promptly the taxes assessed by the Government. 
Had it imitated Vassar and other similar institutions and not paid, it would have 
escaped. 

Truly, Mr. Speaker, I think your sense of justice should induce you to tell "the 
boys " that this bill must go through. Note what the Stevens family has already done. 
If they were rich, I do not think they would hesitate to take care of Stevens. Unfor- 
tunately, they are not. 

Yours, very truly, Andrew Carnegie. 

Hon. Joseph G. Cannon, 

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. 



STEVENS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, HOBOKEN, N. J. 15 

Stevens Institute of Technology, 

Office of the Presidt nt, March 16, 1910. 

BRIEF STATEMENT OF AN ISOLATED CASE OF EDUCATION TAXED BY THE UNITED STATES. 

A< a civil-war measure on June 3, 1864, the United States Government passed an 
act imposing taxes on Legacies, inheritances, successions, etc. 

Mr. Edwin A. Stevens, of Hoboken, N. J., died August 9, 1868, leaving a block of 
land in that city, $150,000 for a building to be erected thereon and devoted to educa- 
tional work, and $500,000 for an endowment. The building was erected and opened 
as the Stevens Institute of Technology in September, 1871. 

Under tho act cited the Stevens bequest was assessed $45,750, being 6 per cent on 
$762,500. Although other educational institutions were not moving to pay the 
amounts assessed against them, the trustees of Stevens Institute, influenced by strong 
pressure brought to bear upon them by Jacob Weart, United States internal-revenue 
collector for the fifth New Jersey district, paid this amount January, 1870, less than 
one month after the receipt of the bill. This payment was made in two installments, 
two days apart. It is significant that neither of the receipts makes any recognition 
of the fact that this particular legacy was solely intended for 'the advancement of 
learning, the first receipt being for "stranger succession" tax and the second for 
''stranger's legacy" tax. 

The trustees of Stevens Institute of Technology, as designated by Mr. Stevens in 
his will, were the same persons whom he designated as executors of his estate and of 
other benefactions under his will. They were his widow, Mrs. Martha B. Stevens; 
his brother-in-law, Mr. Samuel B. Dod; and his business associate, Mr. William W. 
Shippen. 

Under this law a tax had been levied on a bequest made by Matthew Vassar in his 
will dated February 3, 1868, to Vassar College, Poughkeepsie, N. Y. On July 15, 
1870, the Forty-first Congress passed unanimously a special act concerning this par- 
ticular case, in which appears the following: "There shall neither be assessed nor 
collected any tax as for a legacy or succession, and the sum already assessed shall be, 
and is hereby, remitted and released." It is to be noted that this assessment had 
remained overdue and unpaid for nearly two and a half years. 

The same Congress on July 11, 1870, had given relief to the estate held by Louis M. 
Edge from succession tax on certain church and school properties in Massachusetts. 

Later the Fifty-third Congress exempted from taxation the Young Men's Christian 
Association of the District of Columbia. 

But this was all special legislation. 

Under date of July 14, 1870, the collateral inheritance tax law itself was repealed, 
the evident intention of the lawmakers being to afford relief to all concerned, as shown 
by the following words in the bill: "All provisions of existing laws whereby any tax 
or duty is laid upon bequests * * * for public uses of a literary, educational, or 
charitable character * * * no taxes heretofore levied thereunder but not paid, 
shall be collected." Unfortunately Stevens Institute had paid promptly the Govern- 
ment's claim while the other educational and charitable institutions had delayed or 
declined making payment. The institute was penalized for meeting what its trus- 
tees conceived to be their obligations to the National Government. So far as known, 
and every possible effort has been made to ascertain the facts, the United States Gov- 
ernment has never collected and retained a tax from any other educational institution. 

A special war tax on legacies, bequests, etc.. passed by Congress June 13, 1898, at 
the time of the Spanish war (which special tax forms a parallel with the civil-war 
measure under which Stevens Institute was taxed), was followed by an act of the 
Fifty-seventh Congress (H. R. 10303) providing for the "refunding of taxes paid upon 

legacies and bequests for uses of a religious, charitable, or educational character 

* * * >> 

Unfortunately this bill providing for the refunding of taxes in such cases as our own 
extends no further back than the date of the Spanish war measure. Our own claim 
is none the less just; and that the statute of limitation is not necessarily a bar to our 
claim is shown by the action of Congress itself in passing an act on August 27, 1888, 
authorizing and directing the Secretary of the Treasury to pay a drawback of duties 
on certain goods, but which "were not entered for drawback within the time fixed 
by law." 

The recent efforts (in 1905 and 1908) to recover this money from the Government 
were not the first that were put forth by the authorities of Stevens Institute. Previous 
to 1874 the trustees had endeavored to secure the repayment of the tax, and in that 
year the matter was placed in the hands of the law firm of Alexander & Green, who 
pressed the claim for refund particularly before the Secretary of the Treasury and the 
Commissioner of Internal Revenue at Washington. These officials declared that the 



16 STEVENS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, HOBOKEN, N. J. 

only relict' could come through Congress. Following this, the trustees petitioned 
Congress at succeeding sessions, the petition of December 27, 1877, being specially 
urgent and convincing. Apparently the trustees were discouraged by the indiffer- 
ence shown by Congress to iheir just claim, for there is found no record of further 
definite effort to recover until 1903, when President Humphreys began a careful 
investigation of the whole subject. 

In 1905 President Humphreys caused a relief bill to be introduced in both Houses 
of Congress. At the same time he issued a circular to the alumni asking them to 
cooperate by writing to or interviewing their Representatives in Congress. He 
appeared before the Committee on Claims of the House of Representatives, receiving 
most encouraging assurances from that committee. The alumni responded loyally 
to the request for cooperation, bringing pressure to bear upon their Representatives. 
Most of the correspondence passed through the hands of President Humphreys. Only 
two Congressmen declined to acknowledge the justice of the institute's claim; most 
of them spoke positively in favor of restitution. One of the two who, in correspond- 
ence, had declared against restitution, after listening to President Humphreys's 
explanation and arguments in the Committee on Claims, frankly acknowledged that 
he was converted, and turning to the chairman said, "This is a most righteous claim 
and should be paid." 

In 1908 bills for relief were again introduced in Congress and the alumni were again 
circularized. 

Since 1903 President Humphreys has been constantly engaged, in every way open 
to him, in the effort to recover from the United States Government this money, never 
more needed than at the present time. 



Statement in Regard to Money Taken by the United States Government 
from the Original E. A. Stevens Endowment as Collateral Inheritance 
Tax Under an Act Passed in 1864 and Repealed July 14, 1870. 

Hoboken, N. J., June 29, 1905. 

Mr. Edwin A. Stevens, of Hoboken, in his will bearing date April 15, 1867, be- 
queathed a block of land bounded by Hudson, River, Fifth and Sixth streets, §150,000 
as a building fund, and $500,000 as an endowment fund, and upon this endowment 
the Stevens Institute of Technology was organized. 

On this endowment the United States, through Jacob Weart, collector for the 
fifth district of New Jersey, United States internal revenue, collected as collateral 
inheritance tax 6 per cent on $762,500, namely $45,750. This payment was made 
by the Stevens Institute trustees January 28, 1870. 

The Forty-first Congress passed an act repealing "all provisions of existing laws 
whereby any tax or duty is laid upon bequests or devises, or transfers by deed, grant, 
or gift made, or intended to take effect after the death of the grantor, of any real or 
personal property, in trust or otherwise, for public uses of a literary, educational, 
or charitable character, or upon any real or personal estate which may become subject 
to any trust as aforesaid, under any past or future disposition which, if made in favor 
of an individual, would confer on him a succession * * * and no taxes heretofore 
levied thereunder, but not paid, shall be collected.'" (The underscoring has been added 
in copying.) 

This repealing act was approved July 14, 1870. 

On July 15, 1870, there was approved a special act of the Forty-first Congress releas- 
ing from succession tax devises and bequests made to Vassar College by the last will 
and testament of Matthew Vassar, bearing date the 3d of February, 1868. 

The Forty-first Congress also passed an act to relieve the estate held by Louis M. 
Edge from succession tax and stamp tax. Edge during his lifetime held the legal 
title to certain church and school properties in the States of Massachusetts and New 
York. Edge died the 23d day of February, 1870. By an act of Congress, approved 
July 11, 1870, his trustees were relieved from paying any legacy or succession tax 
upon the property left for school and church purposes. 

Thus it is shown that if the Stevens Institute trustees had held off from paying 
this tax, as other like institutions did, this serious impairment of its endowment could 
have been altogether avoided. 

Precedents can be established from the congressional records of Congress giving 
relief without regard to the statute of limitations. To quote a single case: The Fiftieth 
Congress passed an act for the relief of the Sone & Fleming Manufacturing Company, 
authorizing and directing the Secretary of the Treasury to pay to that company the 
sum of $5,265.73, being the amount of drawback of duties due to them on certain tin 



STEVENS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, HOBOKEN, N. J. 17 

cans, exported by them, hut which were no1 entered for drawback within the time 
fixed by law. This act unapproved A.ugus1 -7, L888. 

Stevens Institute has bees engaged since is; I in thoroughly equipping young men 
for work in the engineering and industrial fields. From IS71 until May, L9G2, the 
work was under the direction of Dr. Henry Morten, who served for about eight years 
of this time on the United States Light-House Hoard without compensation. 

At the time oi the breaking out of the Spanish war. 31 Stevens graduates volunteered 
for the service in the army or the navy. Many of these men served with distinction 
and some of them have remained in the employ of the Government. Sixteen Stevens 
graduates are now in the service of the United States Government. 

The records made by its alumni in the industrial field have operated to send to 
Stevens a constantly increasing number of students, with the result that its endow- 
ment is now quite insufficient to provide for the work in hand. 

The officers are making- every possible effort to raise $500,000 for additional buildings, 
their equipment, and their endowment. 

Two pledges of $50,000 each have been secured contingent upon the raising of a 
like amount of §100,000. 

There is now being built a new laboratory of chemistry from a fund subscribed by 
the late president and the alumni. This building and its equipment will cost about 
$120,000. 

The Institute is not asking for any government aid, but it is asking to have restored 
to it, with interest, the money taken by the United States Government, which, under 
similar conditions, was restored to other educational institutions. 

The notable services rendered to their country by E. A. Stevens, the institute's 
founder, his brother, Robert L. Stevens, and their lather, Col. John Stevens, serve 
to emphasize the justice of this claim for restitution. A very brief statement of these 
services is hereto appended. 

Alex. C. Humphreys, President. 

INVENTIONS AND WORK OF COL. JOHN, ROBERT L., AND EDWIN A. STEVENS BRIEFLY 

STATED. 

President Charles King, of Columbia College, writing of Col. John Stevens in 1852, 
said: "Born to affluence, his whole life was devoted to experiments, at his own cost, 
for the common good " ; and the same may be said in substance of his sons, Robert L. 
and Edwin A. Stevens. 

Col. John Stevens, father of the founder of Stevens Institute of Technology, born 1749, 

died 1838. 

Was treasurer of New Jersey during the active period of the Revolutionary war, 
1777-1783. 

The patent law of April 10, 1790 — the foundation of American patent law — was 
framed on his petition. (See Journal of House of Representatives, p. 30.) 

Began experimenting on steamboat construction previous to 1790; took out patents 
for propelling boats by steam pumps in 1792, and in 1798 constructed a steamboat that 
navigated the Hudson River. (See inscription beneath medallion portrait of John 
Stevens in section of Transportation and Engineering in United States National 
Museum at Washington.) 

Was first to make practical application of steam to screw propellers in 1804, when 
he operated a steamboat on the Hudson River — three years before the Clermont. The 
engine for his boat was built by him at home; that for the Clermont was built in 
England. « 

Invented the multitubular boiler in 1803. 

Built the Phoenix in 1807, which was the first steamboat that ever ventured on the 
sea — going from New York to Philadelphia in 1809 under the command of his son, 
Robert L. Stevens. 

Built the steam ferryboat Juliana in 1811 for operation between New York and 
Jersey City, but was driven from the Hudson River by monopoly held by Fulton. 
Colonel Stevens then operated his ferryboat between Middletown and Hartford on 
the Connecticut River. 

a Historical references for the statements made in this and the following paragraphs 
may be found in the Morton Memorial Volume, published at Stevens Institute of 
Technology, Hoboken, N. J., 1905. 

36829—10 2 



18 STEVENS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, HOBOKEN, N. J. 

Designed a steam vessel with a "saucer-shaped" hull to be plated with iron and to 
carry a heavy battery, and so constructed as to revolve rapidly about a center so that 
a gun could be fired as it came in line, and reloaded before it again came around. 
This was an early embodiment of the Monitor principle and was the first ironclad 
ever designed, 1813. 

In 1814 and toward the close of the war with Great Britain he devised and put 
forth the plan of a circular iron fort moved by steam for the protection of the harbor 
of New York, and in connection therewith caused experiments to be made to deter- 
mine the effect of firing cannon balls from a 6-pounder bronze cannon against iron 
plating. 

Presented to the United States Government in 1816 a plan for a man-of-war propelled 
by a screw. 

Suggested to the legislature of the State of New York in 1810 the advisability of 
constructing a railroad across the State from the Hudson River to Lake Erie instead 
of building the Erie Canal; and in advocating a railroad at that time, long before the 
world had ever seen a locomotive, he predicted that there was "no limit to the speed 
of a locomotive on a rail but the strength of materials," and also stated: "It may 
not in practice be convenient to exceed 20 or 30 miles an hour, and I should not 
be surprised at seeing steam carriages propelled at the rate of 40 or 50 miles an hour." 

Built an experimental locomotive and operated it for several years on a circular 
track in Hoboken in 1826. This was the first locomotive in America, driven by steam 
on a track, of which there is reliable record. 

The South Carolina Railroad, commenced in 1829 and completed in 1832, and which 
was then the longest railway in the world, was constructed on his plans, as laid down 
by him twenty years before. 

Obtained the first railroad charter granted in America, in 1817, from the State of 
New Jersey, "to build a railroad from the river Delaware, near Trenton, to the river 
Raritan, near New Brunswick." 

Principally through his exertion and in company with Stephen Girard and Horace 
Binney, obtained the original charter for the Pennsylvania Railroad in 1823 from the 
legislature of Pennsylvania for a railroad from Harrisburg to Pittsburg. 

Robert Livingston Stevens, brother of the founder of Stevens Institute of Technology, born 

1787, died 1856. 

Commanded the first steamboat that ever ventured on the ocean, in 1809, in a trip 
from New York to Philadelphia on the Phoenix. 

Experimented with bombs to be fired from cannon in 1814, developing the percus- 
sion shell subsequently used by the United States Government. 

Builder of fast steam vessels. The utmost speed hoped for in the Clermont, which 
operated on the Hudson in 1807, was 7 miles per hour. Robert L. Stevens improved 
on this steadily, and in 1814 turned out the New Philadelphia, superior in size and 
equipment to all previous vessels, and it started forth at a rate of 13J miles per hour. 
With this vessel began the first day line from New York to Albany. The New Phila- 

' _ hia was the first steamboat to use a long sharp bow. 

First to use steam expansively in the New Philadelphia steamboat in 1815. 

First to burn anthracite coal in a cupola furnace, and subsequently to introduce 
this fuel in fast steamers. 

(k Originated the form of ferryboats and ferry slips now in general use, constructing 
the ferry slips with spring piling and fenders. 

First to apply successfully artificial blast to the boiler furnaces by means of blowers, 
on steamboat North America in 1827. 

Invented what is known as the hog-frame construction for strengthening and steady- 
ing fast steamboats, in general use since 1827. 

Invented the T rail now in general use on American railways; also the familiar 
form of spike for securing the rails, 1830. For many years Vignelles of France was 
credited with the invention of this form of rail, but it is now firmly established that the 
credit is due to Robert L. Stevens. 

Introduced balanced steam valves on the New Philadelphia in 1832. 

With his nephew, F. B. Stevens, invented the Stevens cut-off gear, in general use 
since 1841. 

Designed, in 1844, the sailing yacht Maria, which beat, without difficulty, the 
victorious America, which won, in the race in the British channel, the now famous 
"America Cup." 

Presented to the United States Government in 1841, through his brothers, John C. 
and Edwin A. Stevens, plans for an armored war vessel; and in 1842 the Government 
entered into contract with him (see Chap. XII, Stat. L.), "authorizing the construction 
of a steamer for harbor defense," the vessel to be a "war steamer, shot and shell proof, 



STEVENS INSTITUTE OF. TECHNOLOGY, HOBOKEN, N. J. 19 

and to be built principally of iron upon the plans of said Stevens." The bill for 
this contract was reported from the Committee of the Whole of the House of Repre- 
sentatives. April 7. L842, at the suggestion of ex-President John Quincy Adams, who 
characterized it as "one of pressing emergency." It passed the Senate unanimously, 
and in the House there were but 13 dissenting votes. It was promptly approved by 
President Tyler, and almost immediately the construction of the first armor clad, 
known as the Stevens Battery, was begun by Robert L. Stevens, at Hoboken, N. J. 

A score of minor inventions, all of which have contributed to the rapid advance of 
mechanical development in the United States, are the products of the fertile minds 
of Robert L. Stevens and of his father and brother. In the perfection of mechanical 
detail Robert was doubtless superior, while his father excelled in the conception and 
development of broader plans and his brother in the management of the Stevens's 
enterprises. 

Edwin A. Stevens, founder of Stevens Institute of Technology, born 1795, died 1868. 

Invented in 1820 the Stevens plow, which was manufactured for many years and 
sold in large quantities throughout the agricultural section of the United States. 

Was in charge of the operation of the Union Line, established in 1820 largely through 
the efforts of his father and brother, for carrying on the trade between Philadelphia 
and New York by means of the steamboats that his father had in commission on the 
Delaware River and in New York Harbor, and connected by a fast stage line across 
the State of New Jersey, 1825-1835. 

When the Camden and Amboy Railroad was constructed in 1832 to take the place 
of the stage line across New Jersey, Edwin became treasurer and manager. Although 
there was no precedent for railroad operation at the time he took up the management, 
which he continued for thirty-five years, the road steadily appreciated in value and 
never passed a dividend. 

Invented the air-tight fireroom, one of the important features subsequently found 
in every modern navy, for forced draft, 1842. 

Experimented, under guidance of his father in 1814, on effect of cannon shot against 
iron plating, and again in 1841, at an anxious period when hostilities with England 
threatened, took up the experiments with laminated plates. From these experi- 
ments he figured that 44 inches of iron sheathing would stand 64-pound shot at 30 
yards from the marine guns of the day, and eighteen years later the first English, 
ironclad and also a French frigate donned armor of exactly that thickness. 

During the civil war Edwin, at his own expense, built and fitted out the Naugatuck, 
which was accepted by the Government and used in the attack on the Merrimac. 

After the death of Robert L. Stevens, in 1856, Edwin continued the work of con- 
struction of the Stevens Battery at his own expense, and although the vessel was never 
launched it could have been completed in short time had necessity required. Thus 
for many years, from about 1845 to 1860, the Stevens Battery was potentially effective 
for the protection of New York and its harbor from any attack which might have been 
made by a foreign fleet, for she was far in advance of any of the war vessels of that 
time. The Stevens family expended over 81,000,000 in this work. 

Rear-Admiral George W. Melville, U. S. Navy, stated, February 18, 1897: "John 
Stevens was one of those engineers whose labor has never received due official recogni- 
tion. The navy owes much to the Stevens family, and as an officer of that service i am 
pleased to pay an honorable tribute to the importance of the work accomplished by 
its members. That a memorial should be erected to the work of John, Robert L., 
and Edwin A. Stevens is more than fitting. The day will yet come when the Congress 
of the United States will give some official recognition of the work rendered by these 
men." 



To the honorable the Congress of the United States: 

The undersigned would respectfully represent and petition your honorable body 
to wit: 

By the will of the late Edwin A. Stevens, his executors were directed to found an 
institution of learning, and for this purpose were given a plat of ground, a building 
fund, and an endowment fund of $500,000. 

The executors, having regard to the general public welfare, founded an institution 
for instruction in mechanical engineering and the kindred branches of the sciences as 
applied to the manufacturing arts. 

This branch of education was lacking in the country. It is very expensive to 
furnish, requiring expensive machinery and models. 



20 STEVENS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, HOBOKEN, N. J. 

The young men who seek it are usually unable to pay but a small part of the expense 
of their education. 

The HseflBOf of internal revenue of the United States assessed, and there was paid to 
the collector on or about 28th January. 1870, a succession tax of $45,750. 

Your petitioners would humbly pray you to grant them relief from the debt, which 
was contracted to pay this tax. and which they have not been able since that time to 
pay. by authorizing the Treasurer of the United States to refund the same to them, on 
the following grounds: 

First. Six months after the payment of this tax, your honorable body did repeal the 
same, as being a tax on the advancement of learning; and not only repealed the law, 
but directed that where such a tax had been assessed, but not paid, it should not be 
collected. 

Second. The case is the only case of the kind and the amount is not great. 

Third. The general manufacturing interests of the country are more directly 
advanced by our institution than by any other institution in the country: and the 
service which we render in this respect we can never be paid for. 

S. B. Dod, 

W. W. Shlppen. 

Hobokex, December 26, 1877. 



Treasury Department. 

Office of the Secretary, 

Washington, March 98, 1910. 
The Chairman* of the Committee ox Claims, 

House of Representatives. 
Sir: Replying to your letter of the 25th instant, inclosing a bill (H. R. 20338) ''For 
the relief of the Stevens Institute of Technology, of Hoboken, Xew Jersey. ' " and asking 
that the Committee on Claims be supplied with all information concerning the matter 
in this department, and an opinion touching the merits of the claim. I have the honor 
to inclose herewith a copy of a letter of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, under 
date of February 5. 1906. which gives all information in this department relative to 
the subject-matter of this bill, together with what appear to be valid reasons why the 
bill should not become a law. 

Bills for the relief of this institution were introduced in the Fifty-ninth and Sixtieth 
Congresses (S. 2086 and H. R. 11562) and reports from this department made thereon. 
I see no reason to amend the views expressed as to the former bills as embodied in 
the inclosed copy of the letter from the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. 
Respectfully. 

Charles D. Norton, 

Acting Secretary. 



Treasury Department. 
Office of Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 

Washington. February 5. 1906. 
The honorable the Secretary of the Treasury. 

Sir: I have the honor to return herewith Senate bill 2086. and letter accompanying 
same, which were referred to you by this office, and in response to said reference I 
make the following report: 

The proposed bill authorizes and directs you to pay to the trustees of the Stevens 
Institute of Technology, of Hoboken. X. J., out of any money in the Treasury not 
otherwise appropriated, the sum of 845.750. with interest accruing thereon since 
January 28, 1870. being the amount of collateral tax collected from an endowment 
fund left by the will of the founder of the said institution. Edwin A. Stevens. 

The estate of said Stevens was assessed on the December list of this office. 1869. a 
tax of $45,750 on a bequest made by him to the said institute. This tax was paid in 
January. 1870. by the trustees of the Stevens Institute. The assessment and collec- 
tion of this monev were made under the leeacv tax act of the Congress approved 
July 1, 1862. as amended by the acts of June"30.*lS64. and July 13. 1S66. 

Xo claim has ever been filed in this department for the refunding of this tax and 
none could have been, for, after careful search, I am unable to find that any act was 
ever passed by Congress authorizing the refund of this class of taxes collected under 
the act of July 1, 1862, and its amendments. 

Under the act of June 13, 1S98, commonly called the "Spanish war tax act," taxes 
upon the passing of estates were levied similar in many respects to the law of 1862. 



STEVENS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, EOBOKEN, X. .!. 21 

On Juno 27. L902, the Congress by an enactment authorized the Secretary of th< 
Treasury to pay back to institutions similar to thai of the Stevens [nstitute such sums 
of money as had been paid by them as taxes upon legacies received. This law cov- 
ered the taxes paid since L898 on funds received by religious, charitable, and educa- 
tional institutions. 

The civil war legacy tax act was repealed by the act of July ]4, 1870, to take effect 
October 1 of that year, but the repealing act contained no provisions for the repayment 
of the tax collected on bequests passing to religious, literary, or educational insti- 
tutions. 

This pending bill for the relief of the Stevens Institute asks for the refund of 
$45,750 with interest thereon since January 28, 1870. The interest, if calculated at 
6 per cent, would now amount to $98, 820. which, added to the principal, brings the 
total amount to be paid bv the Government under the provisions of the bill to 
$144,570. 

This office knows of no reason why the Stevens Institute should be relieved under 
special legislation from the provisions of the act of 1862. If this institution is entitled 
to this relief, why not then all other institutions of similar character which paid tax 
on similar legacies? 

With regard to the payment of interest at the rate of 6 per cent, I will say that this 
is the interest paid upon sums illegally and unlawfully collected by the Government, 
and for the repayment of which judgment has been rendered against the Government. 

The Government has had possession of this $45,750 legally and rightfully since 
January, 1870, yet it is made to pay by the provisions of this bill interest at the rate 
as if the sum had been illegally exacted from the institution. 

During a great portion of this period the Government has borrowed money at 4, 3, 
and 2 per cent. 

If the bill should become a law it would be a precedent that could be properly fol- 
lowed by any and all other institutions similarly situated with regard to the payment 
of tax under the civil-war act. 

Respectfully, yours, John W. Yeekes. Commissioner. 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



030 008 679 2 



